Antithrombotic regimen in emergent carotid stenting for acute ischemic stroke due to tandem occlusion: a meta-analysis of aggregate data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The periprocedural antithrombotic regimen might affect the risk-benefit profile of emergent carotid artery stenting (eCAS) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to tandem lesions, especially after intravenous thrombolysis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of antithrombotics following eCAS. Methods We followed PRISMA guidelines and searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from January 1, 2004 to November 30, 2022 for studies evaluating eCAS in tandem occlusion. The primary endpoint was 90-day good functional outcome. Secondary outcomes were symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, in-stent thrombosis, delayed stent thrombosis, and successful recanalization. Meta-analysis of proportions and meta-analysis of odds ratios were implemented. Results 34 studies with 1658 patients were included. We found that the use of no antiplatelets (noAPT), single antiplatelet (SAPT), dual antiplatelets (DAPT), or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) yielded similar rates of good functional outcomes, with a marginal benefit of GPI over SAPT (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.35, Pheterogeneity=0.31). Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression excluded a significant impact of intravenous thrombolysis and Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS). We observed no increase in symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) with DAPT or GPI compared with noAPT or SAPT. We also found similar rates of delayed stent thrombosis across groups, with acute in-stent thrombosis showing marginal, non-significant benefits from GPI and DAPT over SAPT and noAPT. Conclusions In AIS due to tandem occlusion, the periprocedural antithrombotic regimen of eCAS seems to have a marginal effect on good functional outcome. Overall, high intensity antithrombotic therapy may provide a marginal benefit on good functional outcome and carotid stent patency without a significant increase in risk of sICH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".